Does this claim sound legitimate to you?

Comments

Jennifer Norris, a member of the Maine National Guard, chose to be discharged from the Guard rather than answer a question on the renewal form for her security clearance: Whether or not she'd had psychological counseling over the past seven years.

The question on the form is not new. Norris had the Top Secret clearance, required for all communications technicians because they are privy to information which could do great damage to the nation if released.

In addition to completing the questionnaire for her renewal, Norris would have needed a background investigation done by the FBI to retain her clearance.

Norris says, "I just could not bear sharing that information with all those people when my husband didn't even know."

What was it she was trying to conceal from her husband? In her own words, she had been "...sexually assaulted by other members of the military."

She is now trying to get a Democratic Maine Representative to convince James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, to remove the question from the questionnaire military men and women routinely complete to obtain or retain their clearances. And the Representative is currently trying to have the question removed.

However, there are serious questions about Norris' claim. Why would she agree to go on national TV to reveal information that she "just could not bear sharing" with security people? Why would she reveal in public something she kept secret from her own husband? And why now, long after it happened?

In addition, Norris' words "all those people" make no sense in this instance. The only people who would have known about anything Norris put on her questionnaire would have been the specialist who read it and the FBI agent assigned to investigate her recent background to ensure nothing critical in her life had changed.

There are four other questions to be asked:

a. Why did she not report the attack when it occurred? Was it, in fact, an attack or something else, as an investigation would reveal?

b. When she was suddenly confronted by the need to renew her clearance, did she realize that a lie detector test would show that she had lied on it?

c. Did Norris realize too late that her husband was going to want to know why she had been discharged? Was that the reason she went public at this time?

There are some questions to be asked of NPR as well:

• Why did NPR not include any form of statement from Norris' husband?

• Why did NPR not include a statement from either Norris or the Guard regarding the nature of her discharge and the officially stated reason for it?

• Why did NPR not include a statement from the Guard regarding an investigation into Norris' claim that she had been sexually assaulted?

The Maine Representative who is taking Norris' side in her argument against the security questionnaire involved is under attack for a statement of political importance, making one wonder if this is a smoke screen to divert attention from a scandal in the Representative's own backyard.

Representative Chellie Pingree, a Democrat from Maine, is well known for making this statement: “Most Americans never have and never will fly on a chartered jet, much less a fancy corporate jet complete with wet bar and leather couches. So when members of Congress constantly fly around on corporate jets and pay only the cost of a commercial ticket, it contributes to the corrosive public perception that members of Congress are more like the fat cats of Wall Street than they are like the rest of us.”

However, Representative Pingree, it turns out, has been routinely flying on a "fancy corporate jet complete with wet bar and leather couches" unlike "the rest of us."

Would you say it is fair to suspect that the ado on the security questionnaire is a mite suspect, given the fact that the election is now less than 30 days away?

To put all this in context and show how important such questions and background checks are to national security, consider these numbers:

In 1955, along with 225 other men, I volunteered for a special program that required a Top Secret clearance. Once I signed the volunteer statement I expected to go right off to school, but I found out that because the position required a Top Secret clearance there would be a delay as our questionnaires were reviewed as part of an FBI background investigation. I never for one minute considered the possibility that any of the volunteers would be turned down, but when it came time for us to go I was astounded to discovered that 150 out of 225 men had not made the cut because they could not be cleared for Top Secret information. That may give you an idea how important the question is that the Representative is trying to change.

Does it make sense to you to ask this question of someone who is about to become privy to information of the highest possible classification?

"Have you required psychological counseling over the past seven years?"

You should understand that simply saying yes does not automatically make you ineligible for a clearance. The type of counseling and the context in which it was given is taken into consideration. Many veterans who served in Iraq, for example, are routinely passed when they answer yes because they received counseling as a result of the stress of serving there.

Tom: I certainly do not know what the basis of the story is. I do, however, feel strongly about the subsequent actions. Like you, I had a Top Secret clearance and like you feel that there are obligations of honesty and proper behavior that accompany the clearance. Answering that a person did have psychological counseling does not disqualify a person from having a high level of clearance. Simply, it opens the door to other questions. It could well be that the woman was afraid of being asked why she did not report improper behavior. It could be that the woman is coming from a position of weak character. I would recommend that her complaint be immediately be trashed.

The NPR story portrayed Jennifer Norris as simple member of the National Guard who had fallen victim to sexual harassment and had at last revealed her dilemma to her Congressional Representative. But man! What a number they tried to do on us!!!!!!

You know who Jennifer Norris is? No? In all fairness, I just went out to see if there were any more to her story, perhaps some details that lent credence to it. What a shock I got! Go Google her and see her Linked-In profile.

This is no non-political nobody! Here are just a couple of the FACTS! She is:

a. Maine Coordinator, Military Rape Crisis Center
b. Advocacy Board Member at Protect Our Defenders
c. CCM Enumerator/Auditor at US Census Bureau
d. Economic Developer at Town of Lisbon
e. Social Worker/Administrative Assistant/Finance at Ingraham, Inc.
f. Advocate for systemic changes in the way that the US Military handles violent crime investigations and prosecutions.
g. Advocate for taking the investigation out of the Chain of Command.
h. National Victim Advocate
i. Social Worker on 774-HELP hotline; now 211 in which she is:
• Administrative Assistant in the Front Office
• Administrative Assistant at Community Outreach Services
• Accounts Payable Manager in the Finance Department
• Per Diem Employee at local Group Homes and Crisis Units
j. And has written:
• "Why I Support the STOP Act"
• "Perception is Reality: What's Really Going on at Lackland?"

She summarizes her experience as: "Municipal Government Experience, Government Financial Management, Statistics, Research, Emergency Management, Technical & Computer Skills, Marketing, Business Development, Community Development
Specialties, Government Finance, Community Planning & Development, Public Speaking, Community Building, Marketing"

Does that sound like some poor, non-political woman who was harmed while in the service and just felt she had to share her story with NPR and a Maine Congresswoman at this point in time?

Or does it sound like a politically savvy activist trying to help a friend while she advances her election campaign?

Thanks, John. I agree with you, of course. And now more than ever. Go look at the "rest of the story" that I just put up. Had I not gone out to see if I could find some details supporting the story we'd never have known how close we came to being taken.

Tom, the explanation above certainly exposes the woman as an opportunist bitch! "Advocate for systemic changes in the way that the US Military handles violent crime investigations and prosecutions." She's really out to beat on her own drum.

I have spent roughly four hours digging up every piece of information that exists on Jennifer Norris, and on her husband as well, since the two of them were involved in a case which bears a faint resemblance to what Jennifer says originally happened to her (a party where adults provided alcohol to a younger person), and that possibility had to be cleared away before I could proceed any farther.

I could lay it all out here for you, but I won't, of course. I'll only point out a couple of facts that I feel are highly relevant to the NPR article.

First of all, NPR failed to identify who Jennifer Norris was. She was just named --"Jennifer Norris"-- and only referred to as a former member of the national guard. No mention was made of the fact that she was the Coordinator for the State of Maine Military Rape Crisis Center, and a political activist highly involved in such matters.

In journalism, failing to let your reader know who is speaking is an unforgivable betrayal of trust. It is one thing if a person is a victim who is speaking of what happened to him or her; it is quite another when thing that victim is politically involved in the issue under discussion, and is in fact an activist in the area.

And then there is the timing of all this. The article leaves the timeline open, letting the reader believe that what happened to Norris is something of current concern, something that happened recently, and that the person involved is still in the early stages of getting over it, thereby playing on our natural feelings of outrage. But that is so far from the truth it is hard to believe that the story was ever printed.

The event that Jennifer Norris was speaking of, if it happened at all, which has to be questioned to some extent after so many years have passed, happened in April 1996. She served in the Guard for 9 years and 6 months afterward, and she claims that the person who assaulted her was only "the first of four perpetrators I encountered in the first two years of service to my country." Notice the term perpetrators; it very clearly implies that something illegal and improper happened four times, yet she never reported any of the assaults until after she was out of the Guard for a full 6 years and had taken her current position, and even then she only reported it on a commercial website--a full 10 months after she was in her current position at the Rape Crisis Center.

That means that the event NPR was "reporting" occurred a full 18 years before the story broke, and only then because it had to do with the election of a Maine Representative.

Those are facts, presented to you with as little emotion as possible, but if I were free to speak in ordinary street language the words would fry the screen on your computer. And I would not be speaking of Jennifer Norris, who may very well once again be the victim in all this, someone being used for political purposes.

Exactly Pat!! Good grief, all day long I have heard comments about big, bad, mean Mitt Romney wanting to "fire Big Bird". Sheesh!! Why in the world should our government be funding ANY television or radio station? If the station cannot support itself, whether through selling airtime, commercials or public donations, I guess there isn't that big a need or want for it, then, is there?

I'd first like to explain that comment, which I made yesterday, because someone might wonder why I went to all the trouble of doing the research but never posted it. There are times when if I put up everything I came across it would be tantamount to trashing someone, and I'm not in the business of trashing people. I comb the net in a search for information that helps me understand what is going on, not to harm someone. Then too, there is always room for error in any given news report; news reports are by their nature incomplete because of space and/or time constraints. Also, it's a lot easier to say what someone should have done than to be in someone's shoes and actually do it. If you are curious to know more, I suggest you Google Jennifer Norris, read what is out there, and make up your own mind. I'd rather let the subject drop.

"Another good reason to de-fund PBS and NPR."

"I guess there isn't that big a need or want for it, then, is there?"

I was once all in favor of radio stations which were supported by public money. As a boy I used to listen to one of them almost every day--WNYC, the radio station of New York City. But it provided a genuine public service. It was not a news station; it ran children's programs, and it played classical music at a time when there was no other station that played it. No commercials and no partisan comment. Ever. It was simply a service that brought something to kids--and adults too--that could not otherwise be heard. Spotted around the nation there were several of those, and they eventually evolved into NPR and PBS, but when they did they changed; they became news sources.

Do we need that? I leave that decision entirely up to you.

I went to NPR and copied their entire daily list of programs, then went to each of the non-music and non-children items and copied what was covered, all for October 4, 2012. As you will see, most of what was programmed was news. Judge for yourself whether or not there is anything among the ones I copied which is not available elsewhere. In the "Programs" list I've marked the two programs that seemed to be for children.